I'm using Photoshop 7. I create a new document 8.5 x 11 inches at 150 pixels per inch.
I draw a circle 1" from the top of the image. The circle is 3" in radius.
When I print the circle is nearly .25" smaller in radius and slightly less than 1" from the top.
Why is the output not in the same placement and proportions as the image on the screen?
I have CS5.1 on a Macbook Pro.I have an incredibly frustrating problem.   I've seen similar questions, but not an answer that has resolved this for me. I have an image I have sized to fit an 8.5 x 11 inch paper. Canvas and image size all indicate my image is sized at 7.33 x 11 inches. It is at 300 dpi. Print size view indicates full space is utilized on either side….BUT…
Â
When I go to print, I click "scale to fit media" (which is an 8.5 x 11 paper sitting in printer) image prints smaller with a bar on one side. .
When I uncheck STFM,
I get:
scale - 92.67%,
[code]...
I go through a lot of sketch stages to get to a final picture, and I sometimes print on legal paper. My Brother printer does fine at that with Apple Pages, MSWord, Acrobat, and Illustrator, but with Photoshop there's a problem. I set up a legal-size image in PS, go through all the settings I can find for printing to a non-letter-format sheet, hit print, and what I get is a letter-size patch of image on a legal-size sheet. Clearly, either I am missing something or PS is missing something.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI am a new member and a fairly new user of Photoshop. The company wehre I work had outsourced icons in 16 px x 16 px size bitmaps with magenta background. They got the results they were looking for. Please see blown up image below:
Notice that the image has a uniform background color that we require!!
I created a similar image of 160 px x 160 px size in Photoshop. When I reduce the image to the icon size of 16 px x 16 px and save as a bitmap file, the background is pixalated.
how do i match on screen document size to view print size? when i create a new document and put in its dimensions when i press view print size it appears alot smaller on screen
View 4 Replies View RelatedI have a jpeg of an image that I will have to increase roughly 140% for a final print size of 16"x20". I am creating the final design in InDesign, but am editing the image in Photoshop first. My question is what's the best way to increase the size of the jpeg first in Photoshop (I assume) so that when I bring it into InDesign it is maximized in terms of resolution but not so large that the file size prohibitive for sending.
Â
I've already cropped the image, but haven't adjusted any of the sizes. The dimensions are currently: 3233 pixels x 2586 pixels, and 10.777 in x 8.62 in at 300 pixels per inch.
Â
Do I bring it into InDesign this way or increase the document size first in Photoshop?If I increase the size in Photoshop, I assume I should resample the image. If I do, that increases the pixel dimensions and file size to over 82.4M. Is there a way to keep the 300 ppi resolution while reducing the file size?
The rule of thumb for traditional illustration work is to do the original about 1/3 larger than it will be printed to allow for some tightening up. My question is, when working in photoshop at 300 dpi, is there any reason to work larger than the print size?
View 2 Replies View RelatedOur supplier sent us some wierd size pdfs that are not full size or half size. I am trying to resize them to full size pdfs (Arch D) but am unable to figure this out in Acrobat.
My work-around is to insert them in AutoCAD and scale them based on known dimensions, then print to pdf. Unfortunately the resulting file is collosal and the quality degraded.
I've been asked to do a poster A2 size 594mm x 420mm 300dpi but when i enter these dimensions my pc is slowing down dramatically. whats the best way to achieve better performance?
View 7 Replies View RelatedI have a Epson R2880 and want to print a series of panoramic prints on it, i have set up the print to be 8x24 inches. When I open the panoramic and give it the size of the paper, CS3 automatically resizes the print, so if i set the image to 8x24 the height of the actual picture is either 8x40 or 3.78x24 .... is there a way to get a real 8x24 print or will CS3 always resize to a fixed set of dimensions ?
View 2 Replies View RelatedWhen I scan an image, in this case a standard A4 size, and do modifications with Gimp I am making progress in getting a reasonably good result but when I try to print out the final image I would like it to be precisely the exact same size as the original . As it turns out the scan becomes slightly smaller than the original and when I print to A4 paper I get an ugly border. which is either a hard line paper edge or slightly contrasting color (not the pure white original border around my picture).
How to change the size of the image once my scanner puts it into Gimp so that it will correspond with the original, or even overlap by a tiny amount, to eliminate the awful edges. Do I adjust the size of the canvas or the image, or both, and if so what are the tools to use. I've tried some Gimp tools that say they adjust the size of the image but they seem to shrink it in relation to the canvas instead of expanding it. Intuitively, since the image consists of pixels, it would seem there should be a simple way to increase the spaces between all the pixels so that the image increases in size. However I'm discovering that Gimp can be quite counter intuitive.
I am using lightroom 3.6 and I would like to know how to print an image at 100% of it's size for a given resolution. In other words without any ipscaling or interpolation.Â
View 8 Replies View RelatedI want to create a template whereby I can make a series of images that I can save as jpgs, upload to my blog, and people can print them. When they print, I want them to be one quarter of a sheet of paper (fit four to a page).
I tried creating a new image using the "inches" specification and those inches seem to have no bearing on inches in real life once printed.
So then I figured that a sheet of paper is 8.5 by 11 and I want a resolution of 300 dpi.
So 8.5 times 300: 2,550 pixels. Times that by 0.25 to get a quarter of it: 637.5 (which gets rounded to 638 pixels).
11 times 300: 3,300 pixels. Times that by 0.25= 825 pixels.
So I put in for 638 pixels by 825 pixels and 300 dpi. I created my image. I saved it as a jpg at full resolution. I uploaded it to my site and tested out the printing.
It took up most of a sheet of paper. Not even close to being a quarter of a sheet.
I've been using 2.6 and created a template for multiple business cards on a standard 8.5 by 11 sheet. [URL]
However the later versions ... 2.8 cause distortions when I try to print. ( Canon MG 2120) The standard 8.5 by 11 mysteriously converts to 7.997 by 10.349 inches .... and a weird 318.870 ppi appears. This obviously distorts my template and the 2 by 3.5 inch cards become odd sizes. When I open the template in 2.6, it works perfectly.
What has happened to the later version? i can't reset to inches and even using the 2559 by 3300 pixils with the 1050x600 card sizecan't be printed accurately So I'm now creating in 2.8 and opening in 2.6 to get my sizes correctly.
I love the expanded tools for drawing in the 2.8 ... but this feature is a nuisance ... along of course with the terrible sizing scale for the brushes. SO hard to calibrate the smaller and moe common sizes. Another bad feature.
Have I missed some adjustment somewhere. Using the same printer, same download gives two different prints sizes in 2.6 and 2.8.
I know Photoshop can do this but is there anyway to make the pixel size not change if im messing with the print size of a photo?
View 6 Replies View Relatedlately I've been started working on Illustrator, since I've always loved the vector pen tool in Photoshop, but I've notice something...
let's say I want to work on an A4 page. I start a new PRINT document, and set the A4 size at 300 DPI. If I do that on Photoshop, I'll get a huge white page that at 100% goes way out my screen, but if I start a document with the same size in Illustrator, I get a page that's smaller than my screen (at 100%).
I guess it's normal because those programs might work in different ways, but I'm concerned about it because this way, in Illustrator a 1pt size brush will always be bigger than in Photoshop.
i currently have a logo that is 460X440 pixels and 12.17cmsX11.69cms and the resolution is 96 pixels per inch.
i am wanting to change it into a 2cm X 2cm avatar that is less than 6K in size,
how do i do this? everything i try makes the output file about 24k in size.
the reason i am doing this is the forum i regularly post on has a max avatar size of 6k.
Haven't had this issue until today (after I installed the recent patches)
I created an image 3.004" x 2.0"
I go to print, select my plotter, select print range "selection", go to preferences>advanced, set my paper size to PostScript Custom Page Size, make my paper 3.05x2.05 for a little extra boarder. Â Back in Print I set my Layout to Preposition to Center of Page which un-greys the position options and now it tells me my image size is 5.1"x2.0 and the Print Preview is showing the center of the image beginning at the left edge of the page...
Mind you, this is the same style of setup I've done numerous times per day for the past 5 years with x6 and x4...magically today it does not center my select graphic to the center of the page. Â If I put the graphic in the middle of the workpage and tell it to position as in document, it is not an issue, but if the graphic is else where on the workpage, it refuses to center..
I'm a very new user to GIMP but have been using paint shop pro for quite some time - I still use version 7
Here's the situation: I received a pdf that I want to print so I imported it into gimp. It's 8.5x11 at 100dpi & two pages. So I imported it as two images (not layers) at same resolution settings. White out the unnecessary images go to print and then to printer preferences. 300 dpi is the smallest resolution on my printer so I also select 8.5x11 paper & 'sale to fit.' The resulting image is so large that approx only the top-left quarter of the doc prints.
OK, so in GIMP I go to 'Print Size' change the image resolution to 300 pixels: same result, exactly
Print size isn't it, lets try 'Scale Image' at 300 pixels. Same result again...
I tried both settings above with 'scale to fit' (printer) on & off with absolutely no changes to the printed image... very strange. Is gimp overriding my printer settings? If so how do I correct this?
Interestingly, when I re-sized the images in gimp (or thats what I thought I was doing with 'print size' & 'scale image') the size of the view-able image on the desktop in the application window did not change... the size of the window stayed the same, the zoom percentage did not change & most importantly the image did not change.
Finally, I checked if the original image prints correctly in Adobe Reader: No problem and it prints fine. Unfortunately, while I have what I need, I'm not one to give up that easily and want to know if the issue is the printer, gimp.
Why I can't get the image to print in GIMP at the correct size?
Windows XP Home SP3 - I just reformatted the hard drive last week so everything is a new clean install
Hp Officejet 4215 all-in-one
GIMP 2.4.7
Can LR 4 display the image (document) size in inches? The only metadate I can locate provides this in pixels, My current solution is to open in Photoshop then to Image-Image size-document size. .
View 2 Replies View RelatedI did a Photo shoot for some dancers who need some images for print. How do i save these images so that they are A, print ready pdf's. and B, Email able.
Â
The goal is to get these images onto the page of a paper/magazine. Not full size but i guess they will be a put in a box.
I'm trying to print a landscape image but the image is reduced when printed. I open a new A4 sized template and make my image but when it comes time to print the image is smaller on the page than A4. Is there an easy solution to this? I have messed around with orientation both in GIMP and my printer settings, I have used the printers' "fit to page" setting and tried everything I can think of.
View 4 Replies View Related1. How do I connect, collapse and disconnect windows (tool bar, property manager, etc.)? They get stuck together and I can't unstick them. Â
2. What's the difference between canvas size and image size? Â
3. Which tools are only for web design (i.e. tools I can ignore if I'm not doing that)? Â
4. What's the subselection tool do? Â
For Photoshop: Â
1.Why is the original layer always locked?
2. Whats the name of the property inspector in PS? And is it called inspector or manager in FW?
"Image > Print Size" really IS the command you are looking for.
The key is to pay attention to the units-of-measure shown on the Print Size dialogue box:- The "Width" and "Height" values under Print Size are displayed in real-world units (inches, mm, etc.), not image pixels.- The "Resolution" values are displayed in pixels-per-unit.- You cannot change your image's pixel dimensions (aka scale the image) from the Print Size dialogue. That's what the "Scale Image" command is for.Remember the relation between pixel and print sizes is:(print size) = (pixel size) / (print resolution)
When you change the image's print resolution, of course the real-world size (the "width" or "height" shown in the Print Size dialog) of your image will update to reflect the new print resolution -- that value is calculated from your image's actual pixel size and whatever resolution value you just entered. This is totally normal behavior -- in fact, it's expected. If you change an image's resolution from, say, 150 pixels/inch to 75 pixels/inch, this doubles the print size of your image but only the print size; the image's pixel size remains precisely the same as before. (You can confirm this by comparing "Image > Canvas Size..." before and after changing the resolution.)
And as others have stated, if you're using the image for Web viewing then its print resolution has absolutely zero effect on how it will appear onscreen (print resolution only affects, well, actual printing), in which case you'll want to use the "Scale Image" command to actually scale your image larger or smaller.
In the new Image>Image Size dialog box, the preview is always at 100% which seems a bit disorienting.Is there a way to set that to default to "fit".
View 6 Replies View RelatedI have a created a new PSD that is 8 1/2 x 11.The canvas size is the same 8 1/2 x 11.I want to put a border around the picture (say 1/2 of an inch all around), and put the finished picture in a Picture frame. After it is in the frame, you would be able to see the entire picture plus the border. Q. Should I change (reduce image size) of the PSD to (for this example), 8 x 10 1/2.     Then increase the canvas size to 8 1/2 x 11. After I increased the canvas size, do a Paint Bucket fill with white (to create the White border)? then print the changed size PSD on 8 1/2 x 11 paper so that it will fit into a 8 1/2 x 11 picture frame I realize I could have just created the new PSD to be 8 x 10 1/2 in the first place.
View 5 Replies View Related When I save a file to jpeg the image size in photoshop remains the same as it was as a tiff file BUT according to the information that comes up in windows properties the file is much smaller (300k vs 2.9mg).  Can you advise me which is the correct file size?  If the correct size is the one showing in windows (300K) does mean that the file compressed in JPG and lost a lot of information?
 and if this is the case how can I prevent that from happening and still save the file as a JPG?  [ I would like the image to remain the size photoshop shows it to be] . Thank you very much.
can a watermark stay the same size even when an image size is altered? say if its text and it gets too big when i enlarge the image how do i shrink the watermark ? when it is already merged and flattened as one picture without a separate layer.
such as a php or java script to keep the watermark distinct in a way even in a flattened pic or to select the watermark to erase it and re-apply it in the right font size back onto the resized pic?
I have just bought and installed Lightroom 5 and need to set my print size to A3 and in the future even bigger. I do not have the facility at home and need to have them sized correctly for the print shop so they do not have to waste time resizing them. I am at a loss how to do this. I cant find any settings for this size print. A3 is roughly 42 x 29.7 cm.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a template with layouts of different sizes that had been working fine with a previous Xerox 6204. My D size and E size automatically oriented with the 36" side parallel to the roll feed. I have since moved to a job that got a Designjet T2300. On this machine the D size orients the 24" side parallel. This wastes 1' of paper on the left and uses 1' extra as it runs the 36" side perpendicular. I have been unable to rectify the problem. I have tried printing in portrait, that actually cut off some of the image. I have tried all types of rotation within the driver and layouts. Tech support had me going into the machine settings and set rotation to 90. Nothing. There is a warning that "HP utilities" is not installed. Could this be a remedy? When the tech came to set up the printer he installed the necessary drivers but mad no mention of this utility.
AC2012, HP desighjet T2300
In another thread it is mentinoed pre-sizing image data to prepare it for best printing.For a long time it's been "standard advice" to resize images so that the ppi is an even division of the printer's dpi, because some years ago occasionally one would run across printers that would produce poor results if you didn't - you might see jaggies in straight edges for example.
Â
Thing is, computers have (not so) quietly been getting more powerful over time, and printer makers have been competing with one another to try to make their printers produce better results than the other guys. One way they've done this is by improving the quality of the algorithms in the printer drivers. Use of mega storage and high accuracy math, which was once taxing on older computer systems, is now standard practice.
Â
Making a few assumptions about the many variables (what printer, what OS, what version of drivers, what application being used to print) , there seem to be several questions here:
Â
1. Can the image resolution be too high, causing the printer driver to make bad decisions about what ink dots to lay down where on the paper?
2. Does it matter if the image PPI is an even division of the printer's DPI?
Â
As I have done in the past, I set out to do some actual testing, to see if I can actually SEE anything to answer these questions.I created a sharp image to be printed at 3 x 2 inches:Â [URL]...
Then I printed it at 6 different resolutions (1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, and 100 ppi) by resampling the image, labeling it, printing from Photoshop CS5, and feeding the same sheet of HP Premium Plus photo paper through my older HP 932c inkjet printer 6 times. The printer was set to its highest quality settings, including 2400 x 1200 dpi mode. This was the result:
Â
I then looked critically and as objectively as I could at the different images. Here are my observations:Naked eye:
Â
The four highest resolution images (1000, 720, 567, and 300 ppi) all seemed to have an equivalent high level of crisp detail.I could not detect the inkjet dots. Smooth objects look smooth.Â
I could see significant reduction in the finest details in the 300 ppi print vs. the three higher resolution prints, and a slight reduction in the 567 ppi vs. 720.At no resolution were any jaggies or evidence of aliasing visible.The inkjet dot pattern was plainly visible, and it does differ between the different prints. But it was not possible to say whether one was "better".Things seem to have a little more texture in the 1000 ppi print vs. the 720 and 567 ppi prints.Â
Lacking a high resolution scanner, I took photographs of the 6 different prints. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to set up with my best lighting and lens combination, so I got some reflections off the glossy paper, and and at this resolution I can't really see the inkject dots in the photos. I want to repeat this when I can find more time to do it better. As I did these photos hand-held, I believe the variances between them could be slightly influencing the results. But I'm going to post them anyway, for you to see.
Â
I could see ever so slightly more detail in the 720 ppi print vs. the 1000 ppi print, though from the size of the tiny dust/light reflections I think it may have just been the better focused. Note that this observation is not supported by direct observation through the jeweler's loupe, above.The 1000 ppi and 567 ppi prints seems to have slightly more noise or texture than the 720 ppi print.Â
Again, this might be issues introduced by the photography process, though I did note a possible increase in texture in the 1000 ppi print with the jeweler's loupe as well.Beyond just the blurring, I could see some evidence that straight lines are not quite as straight in the lower resolutions (300 ppi and lower). This seemed more apparent than with the jeweler's loupe examination, and I wonder whether the Photoshop downsampling process could have introduced it.Â
Â
Left to right, top to bottom:Â 1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, 100:
Conclusions:
Â
Printing to my HP 932c inkject printer on Windows 7 x64
Â
300 ppi is not sufficient to coax the best possible detail out of an inkjet printer. It appears a number in the vicinity of 720 or more is better, and this number could be much higher with modern very high resolution printers (mine's old). Speed was no different in printing any of these - a modern computer can process a huge amount of data in the blink of an eye.When a sufficiently high resolution image is printed (in this case 567 ppi or higher)
I saw virtually no evidence that a particular ppi value is superior, for example an even division of the printer's dpi, though in hindsight I realize I should have prepared a 600 ppi image (duh). I will add a 600 ppi image before I re-photograph the results.It's possible ever so slightly more texture becomes visible at 1000 ppi than 720 ppi, but it might be just noise.Practically speaking, from looking critically at the results I could not see a reason to pre-size the image for a specific ppi value.Â